I'm not saying determinism is just your opinion. I'm saying that the areas that you interpret that it can be applied to is your opinion, your philosophy.

I view conscious minds as deterministic. You responded as though I did not. That isn't a matter of opinion.

If you think that consciousness cannot be viewed as deterministic, then you need to make that case first, or at least state that that's your position, before assuming it to be true when talking to someone who clearly doesn't share that view.

I'm not saying determinism is just your opinion. I'm saying that the areas that you interpret that it can be applied to is your opinion, your philosophy.

I view conscious minds as deterministic. You responded as though I did not. That isn't a matter of opinion.

If you think that consciousness cannot be viewed as deterministic, then you need to make that case first, or at least state that that's your position, before assuming it to be true when talking to someone who clearly doesn't share that view.

I think it's just miscommunication then, because , I just assumed that you would think I disagreed with your position since I started to debate the idea.

You think thoughts, choices, must be deterministic. Well, many people do not, they believe in free-will. These aren't factual differences, they are philosophical.

That they believe differently is factual.[nb]

Ok. But the beliefs themselves are not facts, which was my point. I can't say well, determinism is bs because it's not a fact, and vice versa with free-will. That's why they are philosophical, they are open to debate.

Ok. But the beliefs themselves are not facts, which was my point. I can't say well, determinism is bs because it's not a fact, and vice versa with free-will. That's why they are philosophical, they are open to debate.

Then your point is irrelevant to our original problem. Free outlined it quite nicely. Why don't you respond to his post a 2nd time, this time reading and processing its actual contents?

I know you disagree with my position, Gill. I didn't know that you disagree that I held my position.

Huh? That's fine to have that position, but I figured you were open to debate about it. I'm open for debate reguarding free-will, otherwise, I wouldn't come here, I'd just say, welp, this is what I believe and so I don't care what anyone says....

I know you disagree with my position, Gill. I didn't know that you disagree that I held my position.

Huh? That's fine to have that position, but I figured you were open to debate about it. I'm open for debate reguarding free-will, otherwise, I wouldn't come here, I'd just say, welp, this is what I believe and so I don't care what anyone says....

Case in point, ladies and gentleman! Here it is: A reply that does not meaningfully respond in any way to the contents of the quote it's replying to!

I know you disagree with my position, Gill. I didn't know that you disagree that I held my position.

Huh? That's fine to have that position, but I figured you were open to debate about it. I'm open for debate reguarding free-will, otherwise, I wouldn't come here, I'd just say, welp, this is what I believe and so I don't care what anyone says....

Case in point, ladies and gentleman! Here it is: A reply that does not meaningfully respond in any way to the contents of the quote it's replying to!

What are you talking about? Seriously. Ok, you hold your position. So what? I acknowledged that you did "that's fine to have that position".

"That's fine to have that position" refers to the position taken in what the sentence is responding to. That's English grammar. "That" indicates the thing your reply is pointing to.

So in your reply, "that position" means the position I was taking in the post you quoted, not to the position I was talking about in the other post, which I was only mentioning in the post you quoted.

That part is, as you say, a miscommunication. But if you don't disagree that I hold the position I think I do, then you shouldn't make replies that contend that I don't hold the position I think I do, like you did in the post I -1'd. Agreed?

EDIT: Also, do you agree that it's wrong to equivocate between two very different definitions of the same word?

"That's fine to have that position" refers to the position taken in what the sentence is responding to. That's English grammar. "That" indicates the thing your reply is pointing to.

So in your reply, "that position" means the position I was taking in the post you quoted, not to the position I was talking about in the other post, which I was only mentioning in the post you quoted.

That part is, as you say, a miscommunication. But if you don't disagree that I hold the position I think I do, then you shouldn't make replies that contend that I don't hold the position I think I do, like you did in the post I -1'd. Agreed?

EDIT: Also, do you agree that it's wrong to equivocate between two very different definitions of the same word?

I think you're over-analyzing that. I just told you, I believe that you hold the positions that you do. I'd have no reason not to. But since I don't fully agree with your positions about deterministic philosophy and where it can be applied, that's why I brought up my reasons why I disagree....

You're really not going to take any responsibility for your own words and actions, are you?[1]

You blatantly equivocated - a dishonest tactic, if done deliberately - and Free explained what you did to you very clearly, in case you weren't aware. You happened to also do it in such a way as to dismiss the idea that I legitimately hold my position.

As he correctly pointed out, there is no way to reasonably debate with a person who does that sort of thing. Of course determinism is debatable. I've had the debate before, with people who didn't resort (intentionally or not) to dishonest tactics. And legitimately won.

You're really not going to take any responsibility for your own words and actions, are you?[1]

You blatantly equivocated - a dishonest tactic, if done deliberately - and Free explained what you did to you very clearly, in case you weren't aware. You happened to also do it in such a way as to dismiss the idea that I legitimately hold my position.

As he correctly pointed out, there is no way to reasonably debate with a person who does that sort of thing. Of course determinism is debatable. I've had the debate before, with people who didn't resort (intentionally or not) to dishonest tactics. And legitimately won.

"Was determined to..."? Jesus Christ on a stick, Gill, I just explained to you - and you quoted it! - that under determinism, the universe isn't consciously determining anything. I am determined to be ready for my glacial geology exam Wednesday night. That's a statement that's only meaningful when talking about the state of a conscious mind. You're using it to describe something in your critique[1] of determinism that, under determinism, isn't conscious in any way. And again, that's just dumb. Or dishonest. Take your pick.

Well if you believe that YOU are determined to be ready for the exam, then you agree with me, you have free-will. Since, in strict determinism, it's meaningless to attribute anything to one's 'self', the self is imaginary, external forces control everything, at least that's my interpretation of determinism, and I don't think I'm crazy to think that.

Here is where you did it. You knew that I don't believe what you described, that your idea of "strict determinism" is a strawman, since I'd explained such already. But no. That doesn't matter. I can't actually hold to that position, I have to hold to the strawman you describe here, such that I already agree with you (regardless of what I think).

Which is why I said "fuck you".

Also, are you going to address your very blatant equivocation in the previous post of yours in our exchange to the one I just quoted?

Do you understand the difference between those two words, that are spelled the same?

#1 refers to how you were using it, with respect to the "laws of physics", and how I was using it in my example of my attitude toward the glacial geology exam (my intent was to show you what you were doing).

How can you have free will to a degree? Are there some things we are forced to choose and some things we aren't?

This brings up another thought... At what point in our lives do we get free will, Gill? Do we have free will as a sperm and egg? How about a zygote? What week of gestation do we get it at? 9? 15? 25? Do we get it when we come out of the womb? And also, how do you know? If you believe in free will, then there must be a point at which it appears, because prior to the sperm meeting the egg, the materials in those two things are just lifeless proteins.

Does a single cells have free will? If yes, then do all of our cells possess free will?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

How can you have free will to a degree? Are there some things we are forced to choose and some things we aren't?

Some things are subconscious, and rightfully so.....

Quote

This brings up another thought... At what point in our lives do we get free will, Gill? Do we have free will as a sperm and egg? How about a zygote? What week of gestation do we get it at? 9? 15? 25? Do we get it when we come out of the womb? And also, how do you know? If you believe in free will, then there must be a point at which it appears, because prior to the sperm meeting the egg, the materials in those two things are just lifeless proteins.

Does a single cells have free will? If yes, then do all of our cells possess free will?

I don't think of free-will as an object that one object can posses. I think of it as an immaterial thing, which can be acquired by a material body, such as a person, as it learns and grows. It's almost like 'tuning in' so-to-speak, the mind to this immaterial part.

I know that's kind of abstract, but just some first ideas which come to me.

Gill, Imagine that on two separate occasions you find yourself in exactly the same circumstances, facing exactly the same decision. Do you make the same choice each time, or can you make a different one?

If the decision can be different in exactly the same circumstances.....how is that not random?

If the decision will be the same every time.....how is that not deterministic?

So when you said "I'm determined to do something", I just figured you meant, it was inevitable, even if it felt free. Miscommunication. That's fine.

Ooookay. See, when I said that, I was using it to show you what I thoguht was an obvious example of what definition #1 is like, because you were using definition #1 with respect to physical laws, treating them as though they were "determined" in the sense of having a goal and the resolve to carry it out. I'm glad that's out of the way. I'm sure Screwtape is glad, too.

Gill, Imagine that on two separate occasions you find yourself in exactly the same circumstances, facing exactly the same decision.

Anf, that's a little confusing. If the occasions are separate, either in space or time, then the circumstances aren't exactly the same.

I think Anfauglir is referring to more of a "duplicate universe" sort of hypothetical. He referred to his idea as such earlier. The idea being, if a person makes decision X in one timeline, then time is wound back and re-played precisely up to that point, will the person make decision X again the 2nd time around? Then, his questions come into play.